Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
MSNBCW 11
LANGUAGE
English 11
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
you coming after the guns. >> that's a great segue of a problem potentially of harry reid to face in nevada. he took down the sportsman for harry reid website which you can still find, you know, screen grabs of online. it features very prominently an endorsement of wayne lapierre on the top and reads senator reid led efforts to create the world's finest shooting range right here in our state and staunchly opposed to the so-called assault weapons ban, played a critical role in passing a law to protect gun manufacturers from junk lawsuits, et cetera. where does he go in the national conversation? you mentioned some proposals flying around. what does he do about this? >> i think he's been pretty clear in trying to carefully stake out the position. the history here is he's definitely a pro-guns second amendment guy from a pro-gun state in nevada and the views didn't change. what's maybe changed is that his relationship with the national rifle association is a lot worse. he's found himself running against them and even though the votes are totally pro nra if you score him. the nra putt
party lines, but yesterday republicans blocked an up or down simple majority vote planned by harry reid, so tomorrow the majority leader has scheduled a cloture vote, or if we go to the rule video, the only procedure by which the senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter and thereby overcome a filibuster. the procedure requires 60 votes, so now democrats will need support from 60 senators just to overcome the filibuster and schedule a vote on chuck hagel. >> there has never in the history of the country been a filibuster of a defense secretary nominee. never. chuck hagel had nothing to do with the attack in benghazi. is that something they need to have on their resume? i filibustered one of the president's nominees. is that what they want? >> senator john mccain who once said he would oppose a filibuster of hagel because it would set "a bad precedent" is changing his tune. he tells "foreign policy magazine" my position right now is that i want an answer to the question. that question totally unrelated to chuck hagel as defense secretary is what pre
the most extreme element in their own party through the primary processes, and that's why harry reid right now is running the senate. >> but there are -- i mean, you saw the front page of the business section of "the new york times" yesterday. there are people who want these assault weapons, and they're selling off the shelves at twice the price. twice the price. i was online looking at guns. it's unbelievable how they're marketed. people like them. people in america feel they need these multiple -- what's that? >> did you buy one? >> no, i was just trying to understand. i personally don't get it. but there is -- it's not just an extreme fringe tiny bit of society. there are people out there who support this. >> i tell you what. >> in our society. >> there aren't enough of those people out there that feel like they have to have an assault weapon to carry presidential elections or senate elections. >> there's enough to make gun manufacturers a lot of money, to make the gun lobby powerful, to make people like wayne la bpie e pierre -- >> think about the money he makes by ginning up fear in a
slammed harry reid for saying he hadn't read dianne feinstein's bill banning assault weapons. >> how can harry reid, a fellow democrat, and i'm willing to criticize him, say he hasn't read the bill. this is an emergency. let's knock off the washington baloney and support the president and get some things done. >> the white house wants to overload washington's political circuits. an effort to see what it can get through congress without letting congress and particularly congressional republicans, define what issues get addressed. republican leaders are making it clear they prefer to talk about just one thing before the march budget shutdown. >> this was supposed to be the day that the president submitted his budget to the congress. but it's not coming. i think that's too bad. our economy could use some presidential leadership right now. >> and top senate republican mitch mcconnell was just as eager to talk budget hitting the floor to slam democrats for floating new revenue proposals. >> this is just another opportunity to trot out the democrat focus group approved policy stunt. if this is
was serious, he'd sit down with harry reid and begin to address our problems. >> you know, willie, it strikes me not only the white house but liberals for a decade now have said if republicans were serious about the deficit, they would cut defense spending and they would come forward with tax increases. well, it looks like, as mike was talking about yesterday in this new york article, republicans are going to come forward and let these defense cuts go through. so republicans will, over the past three months compromise in defense spending and compromise in tax increases. so i think it's fair at this point to say, mr. president, show us your hand, because this is what we've been hearing for a decade. taxes have gone up and now we're going to cut pretty significantly from the pentagon's budget. your move, mr. president. >> he wants revenues to go up again and john boehner's response is, we just did that. >> that's the thing. we always heard, you guys raise taxes, cut defense spending and then we will come back with a compromise on spending cuts. but, no, we raise taxes, we come forward with pent
be a complete victory over barack obama and harry reid. and some republicans say just let the sequester happen, let the cuts happen. he says it is understandable because going to the trouble of fixing the sequester would be fixable, and the effort to do so would create strains in the republican congress. but what is understandable is not always responsible, allowing the sequester to go into effect would be deeply irresponsible. steve, deeply irresponsible has never been a winning argument with the house republicans. it has never scared them. >> but i guess, this is an interesting division in the republican party with the rise of the tea party. because the republican party has traditionally been the protector of the defense contracts. there is a conservative part that says to heck with them, we're in favor of big sweeping cuts but we're also okay with big sweeping cuts to the defense department. then you have big crystal, john mccain even floating the idea maybe he would be okay with more revenue as long as it meant getting the revenue off the sequester. the interesting thing here, march one is
shortly thereafter. here is harry reid. >> there's a fair and constructive nomination process politically mow vated sent a terrible signal to our allies around the world. >> joining me right now is john bar ross sew. i want to remind everybody that you sent a letter to the president last week asking him to drop hagel's name from consideration and on that same day we had richard shelby saying that he will support hagel and he's probably as good as we are going to get. why are you still against chuck hagel moving forward and being confirmed? >> well, thank you, thomas, for having me. i think he's the wrong person to lead the department of defense. it's the largest employer in our country, a significant management skills are needed. i also believe that he has been wrong. he has a long history that is to me unsettling in terms of positions on iran, iraq, israel, and nuclear weapons. and i think thomas, anybody that watched the confirmation hearings know that he appeared very wobbly. i don't think we have that with chuck hagel. >> is this more about getting a former republican in charge of def
and women as campaign props, if the president was serious he'd sit down with harry reid and begin to address our problems. the house has acted twice. we shouldn't have to act a third time before the senate begins to do their work. >> good afternoon. we heard the president say last week that he was going to be forced because of the sequestration to let criminals loose on the street if he didn't get another tax hike. today we're hearing discussions from the secretary of homeland security that somehow we're going to have to sacrifice homeland security efforts in keeping our country safe if we don't get another tax hike. this is a false choice. and the president has been engaging in this rhetoric of a false choice for weeks now. as the speaker just indicated, we in the house have acted. there is a smaller and better way to go about trying to achieve the reductions in spending so we can get a control over the spending. and in the house we even included measures that the president has proposed in his own budget. but yet the president won't support even his own measures unless there's a tax increas
officers. >> and in fact, over on the senate side, harry reid has said the same thing, even though he has not given it overwhelming support to these ideas. he said they deserve an up and down vote. is that going to happen? and do you give any chance on passing the assault weapons ban or the limit on the size of magazines? >> i have to be optimistic. there's a thing about being attached to a weapon that automatically is firing and it has nothing to do with sportsmanship. i have been in combat. i have had automatic weapons. sometimes the weapon almost takes you over with the rapid fire that's involved here. it has nothing to do with killing animals, if that's what people want to do. it has nothing to do with sportsmanship. and being able to have these clips that are over ten rounds, you tell me, what fun is it going to be, because people have to change clips. we know why we're doing it. we know a number of people are killed in the process of having to change clips. and so i think that even though there may be an attachment to the automatic feeling of having a weapon, common sense will dicta
a, quote, filibuster. it won't be a filibuster, but they're forcing harry reid to basically go and get 60 votes to confirm hagel. >> why is that? >> why are they doing it? >> why the change? why the change of heart? >> well, i think mccain has gone back and forth. i think at the beginning he suggested that he might try to block hagel's nomination. then he defended him the other day when the criticism really got out of bounds. and now he's back to saying he may try to block it. but it feels like reid will get his 60 votes. >> he's going to, but willie, they keep going back to benghazi. by the way, listen, we've said here clearly the white house screwed up, the state department screwed up, it was hillary clinton's low point. they asked for security in benghazi. they didn't get it. the ambassador asked for help. he didn't get it. what does that have to do with chuck hagel? >> well, john mccain has been trying to get answers from the white house about benghazi. i think he sees this as a moment of leverage now. he can hold this up. he's got a bunch of republican senators who will fo
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)